llvm dev - Jun 2020 - Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:45:37 +0100
Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 12:57, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > I like "dev" as an option here. It's short, and in
addition,
> > conveys the fact that the development happens in that branch.
> > "main" in fine too, although it doesn't have has much
semantic
> > benefit.  
> 
> "main" shares the first two letters of "master", and
it's nice for TAB
> completion. :)
I'm still confused why the name needs to be changed.  It's a branch
upon which (nearly) all other branches are based, and rebased.  Why is
'master' such a horrible name for it?  There are no negative
connotations with a branch name.  Anyone who reads more into it, the
problem is on them and them alone.

- Justin

If the name of our branch causes anxiety/difficulty for a significant portion of
our population, it is literally the least we can do to choose a word that better
respects the last few centuries of world history.

That said, I kinda hate 'main' as it is my stand-in for 'how to
describe the active branch in an upstream/downstream', so it'll lead to
some confusing conversations.  That said, it seems the programming community has
already chosen main as the replacement, so I guess I'll have to just figure
out that 'Main is on first' a couple times in the next few months.

-----Original Message-----
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Justin
Hibbits via llvm-dev
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 7:28 AM
To: Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Cc: nd <nd at arm.com>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master`
branch?

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:45:37 +0100
Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 12:57, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev 
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > I like "dev" as an option here. It's short, and in
addition, conveys
> > the fact that the development happens in that branch.
> > "main" in fine too, although it doesn't have has much
semantic
> > benefit.
> 
> "main" shares the first two letters of "master", and
it's nice for TAB
> completion. :)
I'm still confused why the name needs to be changed.  It's a branch upon
which (nearly) all other branches are based, and rebased.  Why is
'master' such a horrible name for it?  There are no negative
connotations with a branch name.  Anyone who reads more into it, the problem is
on them and them alone.

- Justin
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:46:19 +0000
"Keane, Erich via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> If the name of our branch causes anxiety/difficulty for a significant
> portion of our population, it is literally the least we can do to
> choose a word that better respects the last few centuries of world
> history.
Honestly, if the name of a branch causes anxiety/difficulty, that's an
issue on that population.  It has absolutely no relation to the dark
history of the world, none at all.  Anyone who casts it in such a light
is either signalling or trolling.

I won't stop any kind of rename, but renames have to be done for a
technical merit, not a political correctness merit, or it has no value
at all.  If renaming the branch to 'main' or 'trunk' makes it
easier
for people to reason about the branch setup then fine.  But if it's "to
address a past wrong that has absolutely no relation to the project"
it needs to be rethought.  And I'll go so far as to say that this
frivolous renaming occurring across the board is doing more harm than
good in the name of 'respecting the last few centuries', as it forces
people to highlight that aspect of history, and not move on as a
society.

A master branch is the source of truth.  It's where development
branches branch from, and where they inevitably merge back into.